[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' for keys 'network:type', 'lcn' and 'lwn'

[Sebastian Gürtler]

Am 15.11.21 um 20:59 schrieb stevea:
> I'm at least mildly surprised that cycle_network [1] hasn't been yet mentioned in this thread.
>
> The "keystone" understanding / take-away from this key (tag) is the final sentence of its Rationale section:
>
> "Ideally, all route relations in a single cycleway network should be tagged with the same cycle_network=* value."
>

You are right. The difficulty is that there are

1) some conflicting taggings that are used in Germany for cycle_network=*

2) the fact that there are routes that are part of several networks
depending on how to define a network

one has to decide either to replace existing cycle_network=* tags, which
should have a broad consent to avoid edit wars, or to create complete
new relations with the taggings. (or introduce multiple tags for the key
cycle_network=*)

For example some would say there is a "node network Münsterland"
combining nodes from several districts. In East Westphalia the relations
are collected in virtual district networks Networks "district Herford,
Town of Bielefeld, District Lippe" and so on. There is a relation
"Hauptroutennetz Essen" = "network of main bicycle routes Essen" a
relation "R-Radwegenetz NRW" mainly abandoned but some parts are still
existent. Many of these networks are mainly historical but sometimes
still preserved in some districts and fully or partial integrated into
the actual official bicycle network.

Sebastian